Bain reinforces this finding<\/a>. According to its research, 88 percent of all transformations fall short of their original ambitions. Therefore, failed transformation is not a rare exception. It is the statistical norm.<\/p>\n In addition, Kienbaum\u2019s study<\/a> shows a clear perception gap. The higher the leadership level, the more optimistic people are about transformation capability. As a result, boards and C-level executives often overestimate what their organisation can truly deliver.<\/p>\n There is also a structural investment problem. Less than two percent of transformation budgets go into what makes execution possible. This includes enablement, process redesign, and capability development. By contrast, most budgets go into technology. Often, this comes with a risky assumption: technology will solve the rest. In practice, however, this rarely works.<\/p>\n At this point, it is worth pausing. When transformation fails, people often look for someone to blame. The programme was too complex. Perhaps leaders<\/a> were too hesitant. Maybe the culture<\/a> was too slow. These explanations may be partly true. However, they do not go far enough.<\/p>\n What Bain, McKinsey, and Kienbaum describe is not mainly a failure of individuals. Instead, it is the absence of an institutional link. This missing link is the real core of the execution gap<\/b>.<\/p>\n On one side, there is the strategy that has been approved. On the other side, there is daily management. Between the two, something gets lost. Strategies often end in documents. Transformation programmes often end in project lists. In many cases, tools make these lists look more professional. Yet they do not create impact by themselves.<\/p>\n As a result, the connection to measurable reality disappears. It gets lost somewhere between the strategy presentation and the next quarterly review.<\/p>\n This creates concrete questions for every leadership level.<\/p>\n For the CEO, the key question is simple: Do I know what has actually arrived in the organisation from my decisions? More importantly, is it visible as an outcome, not just as activity?<\/p>\n For the CFO, the question is different: Which investments clearly support strategic goals? In addition, which investments continue simply because nobody has stopped them?<\/p>\n For the CHRO, the focus shifts again: Are our measures part of a cycle that measures impact? Or do we only track execution?<\/p>\n Moreover, the situation is becoming more urgent.\u00a0As outlined in McKinsey Quarterly #2 2025<\/a>, demographic disruption and AI acceleration now hit companies at the same time. Consequently, organisations must optimise the core business and invest in growth in parallel<\/strong>. This is no longer a sequential challenge. Instead, it requires parallel steering. That is exactly where traditional strategy management often reaches its limits.<\/p>\n A company in the electrical engineering and automation industry worked on a structured HR strategy development process<\/a> over several phases. The goal was clear. Strategic HR action fields were to be derived from the corporate strategy using an HR core strategy matrix<\/a>. Then, they had to be translated into measures. Finally, they needed to become steerable.<\/p>\n The action fields had been identified. Responsibilities had also been assigned. Nevertheless, execution did not gain momentum.<\/p>\n The project audit reached a clear finding: \u201cStrategy execution urgently needs to gain momentum. The current status is unsatisfactory.\u201d<\/p>\n What was missing was not willpower. Instead, the missing element was the infrastructure for steering. One critical action field was transparency regarding relevant HR data. This area became a bottleneck. Consequently, it slowed down other priorities as well.<\/p>\n Scorecards were missing. A value driver tree did not exist. In addition, cause-and-effect relationships were based on assumptions, not on data.<\/p>\n Only later did the situation improve. This required a structured strategy control cycle. It also required scoreboards based on statistical methods. Furthermore, goals had to be cascaded to specific accountable owners. Strategic clarity had existed before. However, there was no institutional link to operational steering reality.<\/p>\n A similar situation emerged at a mid-sized insurance company. Here, too, the internal strategy office had a clear mandate. It was asked to close the gap between strategy development and strategy implementation.<\/p>\n The concept was well designed. All departments were to be involved on a rolling basis. In addition, leading indicators and outcome metrics were introduced. Weekly steering meetings<\/a> followed. Binding commitment protocols were added step by step.<\/p>\n Nevertheless, the same pattern appeared. Strategic and operational measures were not clearly separated. Responsibilities did not arise on their own. Instead, they had to be actively institutionalised.<\/p>\n The key finding from the project audit was clear: \u201cStrategy execution only works when it is jointly supported and actively steered at the top leadership level.\u201d<\/p>\n A strategy office alone cannot sustain this connection. Therefore, strategy-to-execution must not be treated as a staff function. It is a leadership task. Consequently, it needs an institutional framework.<\/p>\n Both examples are not exceptions. Rather, they show the pattern behind the 88 percent figure cited by Bain. At the same time, they explain why technology investments alone often disappoint. This applies to AI, new HR systems, and transformation programmes alike.<\/p>\n The Harvard Business Manager 11\/2025<\/a>\u00a0recently asked whether AI belongs on every board. However, the deeper question is different: Can leadership bodies truly steer technology-driven transformation?<\/p>\n McKinsey\u2019s analysis \u201cThe AI Reckoning: How Boards Can Evolve\u201d<\/a> gives a sobering answer. Only 17 percent of boards take direct responsibility for AI governance. In addition, only 15 percent receive relevant metrics for this purpose. Therefore, strategy-to-execution does not begin in middle management. It begins at the top.<\/p>\n This is exactly where a Strategy-to-Execution Office comes in. It is not another committee. Nor is it a project office. Instead, it is an institutional element that creates the missing connection.<\/p>\n First, it creates clarity about responsibility. Leaders know who owns which strategic goal. However, this clarity does not remain on paper. It becomes part of the steering rhythm.<\/p>\n Second, the Strategy-to-Execution Office establishes a measurement system. This system tracks impact instead of activity. As a result, strategic priorities no longer disappear in daily operations. They remain anchored in a control loop. Moreover, this loop remains stable even under operational pressure.<\/p>\n Third, the Strategy-to-Execution Office closes the perception gap described by Kienbaum<\/a>. This is the gap between what C-level executives believe is possible and what the organisation can actually deliver.<\/p>\n Here is an excerpt from STRIMgroup\u2019s explanation of the Strategy-to-Execution Office:<\/p>\nThe Execution Gap is not a leadership failure<\/span><\/h3>\n
What leaders need to ask<\/span><\/h3>\n
Strategy execution<\/a> in practice<\/span><\/h3>\n
A similar pattern in insurance<\/span><\/h3>\n
The Strategy-to-Execution Office<\/span><\/h3>\n
How the Strategy-to-Execution Office works<\/span><\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.strimgroup.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Schwungrad-5-Disziplinen-1-Rhythmus-EN.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n